Wednesday, 2 December 2015

Desperate Cameron, Corbyn both grievously wrong

Cameron's desperation in calling MPs opposed to bombing Syria 'terrorist sympathisers' gives away his uncertainty over how Conservative MPs will vote. Corbyn is a fool for imagining that any negotiation with ISIS is possible. Both major party leaders are displaying their utter and total inability to understand what's going on east of Dover. We're served by pygmies, not statesmen. I look forward to the debate in the Commons. This is one of those times when MPs have the chance to earn their hay.

One question about Cameron's 70,000 imaginary friends that will I'm sure come up is this; exactly how many of the rebel forces in Syria (moderate or otherwise) are currently engaged with ISIS and how many are engaged with the Syrian government?

"Mr Cameron’s hopes that they can be relied upon to defeat Isil on the ground overlook the fact the FSA is mainly based in southern Syria, hundreds of miles from Isil’s Raqqa headquarters in the north." Telegraph, at last feeling free to publish antiwar points of view now that opinion polls have shown a majority of Britons in favour of military action.

Your last paragragh/statement made me pause and ponder upon it's merits. You're so very right in your observation. Now that the HoCs is just some gloried, second tier debating chamber, with no real powers, we have been left with the dross.

I'd vote no for the simple reason that Cameron is lying. 70000 fighters...what a load of bollocks. That isn't even a simple little exaggeration, that's an out right weapons grade lie.

I can only assume that he has some other intention than just bombing ISIS, and since he still seems to have a hard on for killing Assad I think I can guess what his true intentions are.

Deal with the problem here in the UK first. Stop importing lunatics and get rid of the ones we already have. Let the Russians grind ISIS into dust in Syria / Iraq...they are much more capable of doing so and more willing to do it properly.

The only realistic thing we can do on the world stage against ISIS is to go after their funding which means going after Saudi Arabia and Turkey financially. We know that won't happen with Cameron in charge since he's friends with the Saudis and has been pushing for Turkey's entry into the EU for some time despite all the evidence that Edorgan is a really nasty little shit and is actively helping ISIS.

So no, don't bomb ISIS. Not because bombing is bad or the wrong thing to do, but because our leader's intentions are likely going to hinder the destruction of ISIS rather than help and make things ten times worse.

“but do not make the mistake of thinking that the borders that were dictated to us at the end of the first world war by the victorious countries – mainly the UK and France – are acceptable to us. Turkey will find a way to return to its natural borders in the south – the line between Mosul in Iraq and Homs in Syria. That is our natural aspiration and it is justified because of the large Turkmen presence in that region.”

Bomb, bomb, bomb --- BOMBS AWAY! It's hard to believe that any twentieth-century Briton could grow up to be keen on 'bombing,' or being bombed.

Corbyn, the elder of the two, was born in '49, Chubby chops in '66; so neither of them had much personal experience with explosive missiles - though Corbyn might have walked by the occasional bomb-site in his youth. However, you'd think that their parents had at least told them about all that mutual bombing during the two world wars! They also should understand something about the kind of bomb that put an end to the worst of it.

As a corollary to that, it's possible that both are familiar with a British mentality that recognizes the need to avoid any more world wars, but ... do they think that the rest of us have forgotten? Or are they confident that the young are so brainwashed by foreign video-games that we should follow our 'superiors' (BO'Bma, Merkel, any old Frog, Mozzie, etc.) into bomber's paradise?

Q: Why are Russians so brutal?A: Because they have faced constant aggression from Islamic hordes for centuries – and survivedQ: To survive the coming decades of Islamic incursions on our own territory, will we have to become brutal too? A: Looks that way

Pragmatists read this blog, not ideologues. With their wisdom & experience, Radder's commenters will be able to take this dialogue in many constructive directions. No relish for it. Only dogged old realism about what will be required

@ Dee Dee and others - you last paragraph would seem to imply that because the HoC is just a student union debating chamber we get dickheads pronouncing bollocks.

And up to here I agree.

However that rather presupposes that the higher chamber somehow has wise people being wise, when in fact it is populated by a crowd of unelected twats being if possible even more lazy and incompetent, and certainly considerably more corrupt.

And that is to ignore the embryonic world government ie the UN which is equally bad or possibly worse, infested as it is with communist leaders from the developing world who would seek actively to shit on the west from a great height.

Corbyn may be mistaken with belief in negotiation, wrong in allowing a free vote, but his position allows for a more considered course of action later.

Moron Dave on the other hand wants to send our 3 tornado's to bomb Assad under the pre-text of "defeatng ISIS". Cameron is nothing but an outright liar, a warmonger without a plan, deparate to bomb Syria because he lost last time. If he were a rat he'd be shot, (being fat, slow and stupid he wouldn't even have the chance of agility.)

What wonderful thought, what if Dave gets knocked back today - and that, he doesn't win a vote to play the swivel eyed closet fruitcake 'bomber commander'?

What with, Cameron's bonkers outpourings; "70 thousand little helpers", "Save the polar bears", "kill the bastards" and "don't walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathizers"

The 'Eton Mess#I want bombs and more bombing' is clearly, losing the thread of the plot, what would they [Tory HQ and the Grandees] do to him - if he lost his vote?

Though, in the ranks at the back - as we sit and witness, why was the son-in-law of the Sheffields ever given a top role in the first place FFS? and was it because his wife thought she could control him, ey up Sammy - he's out of control now luv - with his keks round his fukwits ankles.

'This is what happens when the governing class outsource power to a higher authority. We end up with pygmies pretending to be leaders.'

Absolutely. You outsource your ruling to an unelected body, who themselves are tools of the UN, overtime your public are going to start noticing who is not in charge. For me it was John Major and Maastricht, others will say it was Lisbon, older and more educated will point to Rome. Doesn't matter, we know where we are now and Cameron is not to be trusted. I'd go as far as to say his colluding is right up there with Heath.

That figure is simply nonsense. This is a war between Alawites, Shia and Sunni Moslems and Kurds all fighting for control of the same real estate. You seem to fail to realise that Assad is Syrian; what nationality do you imagine him to be?

And the leading members of that 'higher authority' are complete dickheads too. Prize idiot of the month Frau Merkel for inviting 800,000 migrants in and then being shocked by the stampede. Her answer to this - first she tried to bribe Africa who asked for a higher bribe, then she offered a bribe to Turkey but they were too clever for her insisting her 3 billion euros was a yearly payment, not a one off. Why is she in charge?? Not fit for purpose.

This particular specimen is steering the EU with a wheel supplied by the UN. You wouldn't believe how far in she is with the top table players - there's a You Tube clip of Merkel refusing to hold the German flag, the look of disgust on her face is incredibly revealing. These people are seriously weird and I doubt if there has ever been a time in history when national 'leaders' have plotted together to delete their own nations. Serious, serious stuff going on.

Assad is King of Syria, and the whole war is about his determination to stay in power.

He has been bombing civilians continuously for years now, in an attempt to kill everyone who wants rid of him.

Being Syrian doesn't stop him killing his rebellious citizens, any more than being Chinese stopped Mao from killing Chinese people. What Assad is doing is laying waste to rebellious provinces, as many kings did in Medieval Europe.

It's all very well saying how terrible Assad is, but compared to what? How did the regime changes in Iraq and Libya go? Childrearing is so brutal in those countries that social attitudes are also brutal (Pew surveys passim) and people expect their rulers to be brutal too. It will take at least a generation or two for that to change. Changing the person at the top won't fix things.

Assad's 'tribe' (the word isn't right) ruled over Sunnis who felt disadvantaged and discriminated against in a low level sort of way, but essentially the country was peaceful, all faiths were respected and everyone had benefitted from better health, improved education and the growth of a mascent middle class. Then came the Arab spring and the Sunnis protested, demanding greater democracy and a bigger slice of the cake. Assad's error was to come down brutally on the protestors rather than making concessions and muddling along; this gave Turkey and other Sunni powers the excuse to foment civil war.

There are no goodies and baddies, no mediaeval warlords. Assad is no hero, but under his regime Syrians were a lot better off than folk in Libya, Egypt, Iraq or any other beneficiaries of 'western democracy'. Sometimes a dictator is actually the kindest option.

The idolators - the: child bum fuckers of the Ottoman Empire. Since the Islamist child killers, rapists and pillagers rode through ~ 760 AD, this area has only known pain, going back to the Assyrians, after them - the Parthians and Greeks, Romans - it has been fought over and contested. "OOOooooh it was much better back in the day", this area has never known 'peace' killing each other was the national event and pastime - until Hafez al Assad Dad started knocking heads together.

FFS get a grip Don Cox.

Then think, of the hatred and enmity, of about and what the Romanians and Serbs, Russians thought of the conquerors of Byzantium.

In all the bomb/not bomb ISIS in Syria angst, it seems to have been overlooked that the UK is already bombing ISIS in Iraq. So the argument used by Corbyn that ISIS will exact reprisals if we operate in Syria is just ludicrous.

The HoC has not voted to go to war, it has authorised an extension of an existing war. So today has been theatre, not reality. And, unless I missed it, Corbyn and co should have argued against this existing Iraq operation to be consistent.

Cameron was correct and factual to ask wavering Tories not to side with terrorist sympathisers. Corbyn, McDonnell, and others are terrorist sympathisers.

What would be a less worse option than remote bombing, of course, would be to root out all the criminal and terrorist infiltrators in the UK and deport them; refuse re-entry to anyone who has gone to join ISIS; refuse to take any migrants; and only take our share of genuine persecuted refugees like the Christians and Yazidis. But that ain't gonna happen, either from Cameron or Corbyn because the grip of pc is so very severe. So bombing it is.

Indeed, already it is chocks away and contact...... they're orf and up.

Camoron is so like Bliar, these political Incubi are damning Britain to some awful hell.

I have a foreboding, a nauseous writhing spitting asp crawling through my innards, of some heinous presentiment. I hate the thought but hold that, the devils of IS and their affiliates here on the mainland now have a rather better excuse to hit some British targets over Xmas. Anywhere out of London, they [we, I, us] are sitting ducks - if I were to hazard a guess, then I would say probably Britain's second city.

Abroad, everywhere from Thailand to India and the Med, Cameron and his freako warmongering tossers have painted targets on the backs of all British businessmen, tourists and expats.

"So bombing it is" was a rueful comment, as indicated by the preferred previous options. And to be consistent, anyone (Corbyn, McDonnell etc) opposed to bombing ISIS in Syria should be agitating for us to pull out of Iraq as well.

Cameron may be oleaginous, lazy, not too bright, vain, incompetent, and misguided but he has not so far lied in the same league as Blair over the issue of war.

In any case as Cuffleyburgers said: "You think that those bastards NEED an excuse to hit us?" ISIS kill infidels, that's their ideology. So Raedwald is right to say: "Corbyn is a fool for imagining that any negotiation with ISIS is possible."

Consequently we have a choice: become ISIS type Muslims or fight back. How we fight back is the issue because the first is not an option for me. At the moment we are neglecting to secure our own country and its borders before embarking on foreign adventures. This is the wrong way round.